Young Sexy Politics

We live in a polarized world. We are totally preoccupied with opposites and contrast. We root for the Yankees OR the Red Sox. We’re partial to vanilla OR chocolate. We vote Democrat OR Republican. Yin and yang, hot and cold, day and night, somehow we can’t escape polarity. We, as humans, are too loyal to agree with both sides of any argument. You may ask yourself: Why does there have to be an argument to begin with? Well, that’s the very nature of controversy. Every issue inherently has two sides. Without both sides, there wouldn’t be an issue.

Today, we know the earth is round. We have satellite photos to prove it. We all agree. Therefore, there is no issue, thus no argument. But when issues do arise, and opposing arguments present themselves, we very rarely reach a consensus. In fact, we never do. It’s impossible. But that’s not the problem. It’s ok that we don’t agree, as long as we have clarity. Clarity is to understand an issue, and know precisely where opinions differ. Clarity ensures that opposing sides are well-informed, and at least know what their position is. Clarity is what makes democracy work. In this article, I will bring clarity to the issue of political ideology. I will make sense of the two-party system and help my readers to better understand their political persuasion.

Most polarity is organic, or naturally occurring. However, this is not the case in American politics. The two-party system is completely contrived and unnecessary. Most people don’t know that Democrats and Republicans were once united. In 1792, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison founded the Democratic-Republican Party. It remained united until 1824, when it broke-off into three competing factions: the Democratic Party, the National Republicans, and the Whig party. Beyond these, there have been, and still are, hundreds of political parties in America. Many of which, no one has ever heard of. For example, the Socialist Equality Party, the Marijuana Party, and the Objectivist Party, have all nominated candidates for public office in the last ten years! But the two-party system would have the American People believe that Democrats vs. Republicans, is the only game in town. Realistically, this matchup is one of many. The two major parties compete in a league similar to the NCAA. They just happen to dominate like USC and Florida.

Not surprisingly, most people find it hard to fully identify with Democrats or Republicans. That’s because they have teamed-up to create a political monopoly with one objective: Divide and conquer. These two parties do not agree on a single issue. They both defend multiple positions, without a coherent ideology. It’s almost like they choose their sides, the same way NFL teams choose running backs… in a mad scramble to one-up each other.

Part of the problem is that both sides misunderstand the political spectrum. Almost everyone does. Not because they are misinformed, but because so many models have been created. This is something America, or the world for that matter, has no clarity on. Many researchers have tried to create charts that encompass both personal and economic freedom, as well as one’s position on church and state. This is called a “biaxial political spectrum.” Here are a few examples:

As you can see, this task has proven quite difficult. As a result, there is no consensus on which chart is the most accurate. It is for this reason, and our love of polarity, that we continue to use and reference the linear spectrum below:

The linear political spectrum is heavily referenced in American Politics. Every person, organization, and idea is assigned one of three classifications: Left, right, or center. While this political spectrum may seem simple and primitive, it is widely misunderstood. Here is another version of the linear political spectrum, with people and ideas scattered across it, from left to right. This is how the linear political spectrum is generally understood:

This rendition of the political spectrum is probably the one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on. Well, that and not letting any other party play the game. However, this rendition is completely wrong, for many reasons. The version above shows fascism and communism at opposite ends of the spectrum. But take a look at the definitions of both ideologies, next to one another:

Communism - Any system of government in which a single, usually totalitarian, party holds power, and the state controls the economy.

Fascism - Any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism.

Both forms of government are usually ruled by a dictator, and the economy is controlled by a very centralized government. How can two diametrically opposed ideologies have so much in common? Well, because they’re virtually the same. Fascism is just a different brand of communism… usually more radical. This should come as no surprise, as Hitler and Mussolini were both socialists before they were fascists. Hitler belonged to the National Socialist German Workers Party and Mussolini belonged to the Italian Socialist Party. Basically, socialism failed, as it always does. So, both Hitler and Mussolini decided that an even more authoritarian government was the answer. So, they both went left of communism to what is now known as fascism. In fact, Mussolini practically invented fascism. But it wasn’t just European fascists who demonstrated this.

The neo-fascist movement in the United States was also very close in proximity to socialism, on the linear political spectrum. George Lincoln Rockwell was one of America’s first neo-Nazis. He founded the American Nazi Party in 1959. Ironically, Rockwell had fought against the Nazis in World War II, as a naval aviator, which he later said he regretted. As the leader of the American Nazi Party, Rockwell worked tirelessly to advance his agenda of neo-fascism. In 1967, Rockwell ushered in a new era of the neo-fascist movement, by changing his party’s name to the National Socialist White People’s Party (NSWPP). Shortly after forming the new party, Rockwell was assassinated by a disgruntled, former follower.

Rockwell’s successor was a man named Matt Koehl. He took the reigns of the NSWPP after Rockwell’s death. Koehl took the party in a new direction, by renaming it the “New Order,” and advocating esoteric Hitlerism, a semi-religious form on Nazism, where Hitler is essentially immortalized and worshiped. He believed Hitler was a god-like being, sent to earth to save European people from extinction. This new belief system alienated many members of the NSWPP, and caused many of them to leave the party. The most prominent man to leave the NSWPP was Frank Collin, in 1970. After leaving the party, Collin formed the National Socialist Party of America, which fell more inline with Rockwell’s ideology than Koehl’s.

Fascists, particularly Nazis, have been closely tied to socialism and the “left,” since their inception. They believe in a huge, overbearing government that redistributes wealth, etc. The only distinction between them and other socialists/communists, is the fact that they believe the government should only serve a particular race. Fascism is basically a racist form of communism.

So if socialism, communism, and fascism are all on the left… what’s on the right? Well, as I said before, many researchers have tried to create a political spectrum that maps both personal and economic freedom. I believe that to be the biggest problem. I see them as the same thing. Every individual should have the freedom to start a business and/or enjoy economic prosperity. Economic freedom IS personal freedom.

In my mind, the only logical way to polarize American politics is to divide the spectrum between those who favor a larger government and those who favor a smaller government. There is no “left” or “right.” However, this still poses a problem. If you extrapolate each ideology to the extreme, you would have fascism on the far left and anarchism on the far right, as seen below:

The problem with this spectrum is that it also does not tell the whole story. Anarchism is an ideology that advocates no government at all. This would seem to be the complete opposite of fascism or communism, but it’s really not. To understand why, one must dig a little deeper.

Anarchists typically identify with the far-left and most experts agree that anarchism is a radical left-wing ideology. This is because three main factions of anarchism are: socialist anarchism, collectivist anarchism, and anarchist communism. I know this is getting confusing but stay with me. These anarchists don’t believe in government of any kind. They see no reason to participate in any type of social-order. That means, they do not believe in currency, which is almost always issued by some sort of national treasury. Ha ha ha, ironic isn’t it? Because they don’t believe in currency, they obviously don’t believe in wages, or any direct compensation for services rendered. Instead, they advocate free use of communal resources, in exchange for labor. Peter Kropotkin, one of Russia’s foremost anarchists, once said houses, fields, and factories should not be private property. He thought they should belong to a commune of people. He also thought wages and trade should be abolished. He believed that private property was the cause of oppression, therefore it shouldn’t exist. Wait, this is starting to sound a lot like communism, socialism, and fascism. Well, that’s because it is.

All these systems are based on the idea that private property is a destructive force, which is better controlled by some larger entity. That idea is then forced on entire nations, as history has demonstrated. Look at China, Cuba, Russia, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Venezuela, etc. They have all suffered at the hand of an incredibly oppressive and overgrown government.

Based on all this, I have developed a new political spectrum, which better illustrates where various ideologies stand, in relation to YSP. Young Sexy Politics is from the perspective of an independent moderate, or “indie-mod.” Keep in mind, for the purposes of YSP, independent moderate, or “indie-mod,” no longer means what it used to. It is not based on the old political spectrum that is too-often referenced in error. It is based on the new spectrum below:

As you can see, socialists, communists, fascists, and anarchist are all lumped together on the “left,” like a bunch of whack-jobs on the spectrum. Socialism, communism and fascism are all very similar and vary by degree. They grow progressively more radical, as they sink deeper into the political cesspool that is fascism. Anarchism on the other hand is so far to the “right,” that is slides right down the spectrum to be with its “far-left” counterparts. While indie-mods simply balance between the two extremes.

People outside the mainstream, on the fringe of society, will always be a bunch of idealistic d-bags. I don’t care which “side” of the political spectrum they identify with… they’re insane. They become over-zealous in their ideology and try to convert entire nations to their belief system, which they believe is “morally superior.” When this fails, they almost always resort to violence, either to obtain, or maintain power. There is no reasoning with these people, because they almost always believe they are acting in the public interest. They truly believe they are doing a good thing, by seizing private property and causing people to rely on government for sustenance. Gerald Ford once said “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” Radical, big-government ideologies have proven this time and again. In the last century, communism and fascism have killed well-over 100 million people. Kind of makes H1N1 look like child’s play huh?

An indie-mod is someone who sits atop the political spectrum, with the best perspective on the world of politics. We don’t believe in an overgrown bureaucracy, nor do we believe in no government at all. We believe in a small government, that doesn’t overstep its bounds. We are the voice of reason, in a world full of radicals. An indie-mod is a TRUE centrist, and believes a government’s only job is to provide services that would cause a conflict of interest in the private sector. Let me give you an example… a national military could never be privatized. The best armies would naturally defend the highest bidder, therefore eliminating all allegiance to a specific country. This is an example of economic competition gone awry, and working against the national interest. On the other hand, an indie-mod believes in a robust and diversified economy. Therefore, anything that can be privatized, should be privatized. For example, EVERYONE was disappointed with the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina… especially Kanye West. It is a well known and well publicized fact, that the private sector i.e. charities and even some corporations, have done more to rebuild New Orleans, than FEMA could ever dream of. But how? FEMA, a bloated government bureaucracy, undoubtedly has more working capital than the private institutions that ran circles around it. FEMA has an annual budget $5.8 billion. But money isn’t always the solution, sometimes it’s the problem.

Governments by design are not at all concerned with profits, or even a balanced budget (just look at California). Why? Because getting more money from taxpayers is always an option. As a result, money allocated through bills in Congress, goes through multiple channels and government agencies, before arriving at its final destination. The distance from point A, to point B, is much shorter in the private sector. Private charities and corporations don’t have the option of raising taxes, or printing money to deal with red ink. In fact, for them red ink isn’t even an option. Their goal is to stay in the black, at all times.  Many big-government advocates try to demonize this and characterize it as “greedy.” I see it as just plain smart.

A few years ago, I heard about a man named Rick Prose, who decided to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward, in New Orleans. He was fed up with the government and tired of waiting for FEMA to respond to the crisis that continues to this day. So, in 2006, he took it upon himself to chaperone a church group from Maine, to a post-Katrina New Orleans. Since then, Rick has been working to rebuild the city nonstop, and started a website dedicated to the effort, www.lowernine.org.  It’s no surprise that many people feel the same way Rick does. In fact, as of 2008, three full years after Hurricane Katrina, only $800 million of the $2.1 billion in relief funds, allocated to the Lower Ninth Ward, had actually reached the Lower Ninth Ward. Only 35% of the money made it from Washington to Louisiana in THREE YEARS! Katrina was a job best handled by the private sector. Rick Prose knows this. He’s an indie-mod, whether he knows it or not. Are you?